view_geometry

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it uses a Three.js viewport with orbit controls, click inspection, and visibility toggling. This adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No extraneous words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, read-only, no output schema), the description covers the main aspects: rendering, interaction, visibility toggling. It could mention that a model must be loaded, but 'from the loaded model' implies it. Not fully explicit about return behavior (likely no JSON returns), but acceptable for an interactive view tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter 'color_by' is fully described in the schema with enum and default. The tool description does not add any additional semantics to the parameter; it merely restates the enum options. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: showing interactive 3D geometry from the loaded model. It specifies what is rendered (surfaces, fenestration, shading) and interactions (click, toggle visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like view_schedules or view_simulation_report.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent can infer usage from the purpose, but there is no mention of alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., model must be loaded).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.